Decent lens, but far from perfect...

alfaholic wrote:

I never said I prefer software over optical corrections, it is just the opposite. This lens is not optically corrected, nor the 18-55 f2.8-4 and that is why I personally find them underdeveloped.

I know RAW files should be developed, and I know how to develop my photos, I am talking about the lens and how sharp it is. Also, I know how to process Fuji RAF files, again it is not about processing, it is about the lens, it is not very sharp by my standards.

Here you have some quick examples, shot on a tripod, around 55-60cm from the subject, look at the center of the frame where all lenses should be the sharpest. I included 18-55 as well, if this is sharp for you, than we do not have the same standards.

Or - my processing of files is superior to yours, but that could not be could it?

By your superior tone you obviously believe you set the bench mark while I've only been in this game for 55 yrs so what do I know. I've better things to do than try to discuss sensibly with someone with your attitude so this is it for me.

If you are going to do this then do it properly with well exposed images at various common distances and common FLs, apertures and ISOs and a wall chart.

I don't rate these lenses as high as my 16-55 f2.8 or 35mm f1.4 - or for that matter Canon 50mm f1.4 but neither do they come within the realm of poor sharpness.

Your review score is so far lower than the average that I guess everyone else must be out of step - except you.

Vic